Selection of a hearings officer to oversee the next contested case for the Thirty Meter Telescope’s land use permit will not be brought before the state’s Land Board.
Selection of a hearings officer to oversee the next contested case for the Thirty Meter Telescope’s land use permit will not be brought before the state’s Land Board.
Instead, Suzanne Case, who leads the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, will make the decision based on the recommendations of a screening committee, according to Dan Dennison, DLNR spokesman.
Dennison told the Tribune-Herald last month that qualified applicants would be sent to the Board, which Case chairs, for consideration.
But on Tuesday, he said in an email that the previous board delegated then-Chairman William Aila that authority when the first contested case hearings process was under consideration in 2011.
“That delegation was never rescinded and is still in effect,” he said.
Dennison said the current board “re-affirmed” that authority.
Asked when a hearings officer might be selected, Josh Wisch, spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office, said in another email shortly before 5 p.m. Wednesday that the “selection is in progress” and “there is no specific deadline.”
A contested case is a quasi-judicial hearing that allows opponents of the project with standing and the permit applicant, University of Hawaii, to make their arguments before a hearings officer.
DLNR received 11 applications by deadline for the hearings officer position. The hearing is being redone following the state Supreme Court’s ruling in December to void the permit.
The high court determined the Board incorrectly voted in favor of the permit prior to the hearing. The previous hearings officer’s report, issued in 2012, was in favor of the project.
Meanwhile, it remains unclear how the remand of the $1.4 billion project’s sublease for 6 acres on Mauna Kea will impact the process.
On Friday, Hilo Circuit Court Judge Greg Nakamura sent the matter back to the Land Board for further review as a result of the land use permit being vacated. The sublease remains intact.
In his ruling, Nakamura is requesting the Board consider the following questions:
1. Since the permit no longer exists, should consent for the sublease be withdrawn?
2. If the sublease remains in place pending the outcome of the contested case, is the Board again placing the “cart before the horse”?
3. Should parties in the contested case for the land use permit be given similar standing regarding the sublease?
4. How will the Board fulfill its “affirmative duty to fulfill the state’s constitutional obligations” in absence of a contested case for the sublease?
Wisch said he is deferring comment until the official order from the court is received.
UH, which subleases the land to the TMT International Observatory, provided the following statement:
“The University of Hawaii is reviewing the court’s decision. The matter is being referred to the Land Board to consider events that have occurred since the approval of the sublease consent nearly two years ago. Next steps in the process will be determined by the Land Board.”
Scott Ishikawa, TMT spokesman, said the nonprofit organization will have to “wait and see what the board says first” before providing additional comment.
Email Tom Callis at tcallis@hawaiitribune-herald.com.